Looks like yours has slightly different paint to mine. On the throat area. Maybe an earlier / later model with a longer length. The pallets of mine have a serial number. Both the same. Not too sure what it means, maybe a batch number

On a closer look, your frame has white inside the hoop and the logo has longer lines which I think is an earlier version. Different from my two. Someone who knows more will be able to tell you no doubt.

Looks like yours has slightly different paint to mine. On the throat area. Maybe an earlier / later model with a longer length. The pallets of mine have a serial number. Both the same. Not too sure what it means, maybe a batch number

Click to expand...

Yeah mine on the photo is an earlier one. I've realised I've actually got three different Pure Control XL's (with slightly different paintjobs), all different lengths. They are 1", 1.5" and 2"'s longer than standard. The 1" longer version I have is the same as yours.

The 29" version above is the one I played with once and it is too long to get used to quickly!

I only thought there was one XL length, (I only ever saw pics of one anyway), unusual decision from a sales point of view to have 4 lengths of the same frame.Or were they destined for a particular pro I wonder?

I only thought there was one XL length, (I only ever saw pics of one anyway), unusual decision from a sales point of view to have 4 lengths of the same frame.Or were they destined for a particular pro I wonder?

Click to expand...

I will check the rackets again next week. They are from different years, 1995,96 and 97, and have slightly different cosmetics, so I suppose it is possible, anyway I will post the results here.

A question from a Babo-n00b: Why were Soft Drive and Soft Power called "soft" when their stiffnesses, according to specs, were in the high 60's and low 70's? Was it just because they had a softer flex than the "Pure" versions?

A question from a Babo-n00b: Why were Soft Drive and Soft Power called "soft" when their stiffnesses, according to specs, were in the high 60's and low 70's? Was it just because they had a softer flex than the "Pure" versions?

Click to expand...

For the first generation the soft versions had a lower stiffness rating (although for the Drives the difference was minimal 65RA vs 67RA), had a different composition (the Pure were 100% graphite while the Soft were 80% graphite and 20% fibreglass) and where lighter with the balance shifted more towards the head (less head light if you prefer).

I just have to bump this because I found something fantastically peculiar. I was looking at a few auctions when I saw something with a crossbar and thought "that's not a Babolat..." Until I looked at a few pictures of it, which made me go O_O

The auction number is 181274539302, Is it first gen, some rec stick perhaps? I'd love to know...

I just have to bump this because I found something fantastically peculiar. I was looking at a few auctions when I saw something with a crossbar and thought "that's not a Babolat..." Until I looked at a few pictures of it, which made me go O_O

The auction number is 181274539302, Is it first gen, some rec stick perhaps? I'd love to know...

This one really intrigues me. It's obviously way too old to be a "real" Babolat, if we go by the official timeline of 1994 being the birth year of Babolat frames. However, what could possibly motivate a factory to go through the trouble of creating a fake racquet that had never existed?

A 1994 French news article indicated that Babolat contracted two Taiwanese factories to make all of their frames, one was Kunnan, the other was Inhan. The Kunnan link is beyond obvious, but I have not been able to find anything on "Inhan". There is however a Taiwanese company called "Inhon" that specializes in graphite products, but it was founded in 2006 according to its website - more than a decade after the birth of Babolat frames. My guess is that Inhon was a subsidiary of some graphite material supplier that worked together with Kunnan to make the Babolat frames, and didn't become incorporated as a standalone company until much later. This would mean that Kunnan Lo essentially had the entire Babolat contract to himself from the very start, even as his overstretched empire was falling apart in a rather spectacular fashion.

During the boom years of the mid-to-late '80s, Kunnan Lo spent a lot of time in Paris, where his prized computer company Arche eventually went public. Is it possible that he also made some side trips to Lyon at the time to entice the Babolat folks to make OEM racquets through him (like everyone else already did)? Maybe this strange beast that we are looking at (quite likely a Kunnan-made POG under the skin) is a product of one of those earlier efforts, which set the stage for the collaboration that took many more years to come to fruition?

To my way of thinking at least, this scenario would make (slightly) more sense than some random factory creating a fake racquet that had no genuine counterpart, at a time when the brand itself was not known to be engaged in any form of racquet-making.

Sanglier may be right.
This "Babolat" model reminds me of many rackets made by Kunnan for the Dutch Rucanor Sporting Goods Company.
They had several boxframes with crossbars in their collection during the mid to late 1980's. One of those models was black with red stripong such as this Babolat.

Can someone who has a 1st gen Pure Drive help me out with the swingweight? Believe it is printed inside the throat?

Click to expand...

Tricky question, even the first generations PD has three different versions
1994 edition (the Original, 280gr unstrung)
1995-96 double line edition (290gr unstrung)
1997 edition (300gr unstrung and most common)

Figured I'd ask this here instead of the Bonjour Babolat thread - ericsson, would you happen to know the actual stiffness of the 2001 Pure Control? It's been rated at 72 by TW but I've also seen it marked as significantly lower. More of a point of curiousity than anything!